Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2026
Commission on Cancer Standard 5.7 Compliance and Technical Quality of Rectal Cancer Surgery: A National Cohort Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Baskin Alison S, Lark Meghan, Fleischer Christina M, Kravchenko Timothy, Sinco Brandy R, Funk Elizabeth C, Hoegnifioh Anani K, Zhu Xuan, Palis Bryan, Boffa Daniel, Dossett Lesly A, Hendren Samantha
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Commission on Cancer Operative Standard 5.7 requires documentation of complete or near-complete total mesorectal excision (TME) for eligible rectal cancer resections, but it is unknown whether facility compliance with Standard 5.7 reflects established measures of surgical quality.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of the National Cancer Database linked to Commission on Cancer accreditation data. Adults aged 18-90 years with clinical stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing resection at Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities between 2020 and 2023 were compared according to facility Standard 5.7 compliance. Primary outcomes were circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity and TME grade; secondary outcomes included lymph node yield. Mixed-effects regression models adjusted for age, sex, Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index, clinical T stage, clinical N stage, tumor grade, and lymphovascular invasion.
RESULTS: Among 22,688 patients treated at 873 facilities, 91% underwent surgery at compliant hospitals. CRM positivity was lower at compliant facilities (12% vs 14%; adjusted OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.99; P=0.04). Patients treated at compliant facilities had greater odds of achieving a more complete TME (adjusted OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.21-2.19; P=0.001), with lower rates of incomplete TME (9% vs 14%; P<0.001). Although ≥12 lymph nodes were examined more frequently at compliant facilities (85% vs 81%; P<0.001), this association was not significant after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.99-1.55; P=0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: Standard 5.7 compliance was independently associated with lower CRM positivity and more complete TME, suggesting that Standard 5.7 represents a meaningful facility-level indicator of technical quality in rectal cancer surgery. Whether these differences translate into improved long-term oncologic outcomes requires further study.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of the National Cancer Database linked to Commission on Cancer accreditation data. Adults aged 18-90 years with clinical stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing resection at Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities between 2020 and 2023 were compared according to facility Standard 5.7 compliance. Primary outcomes were circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity and TME grade; secondary outcomes included lymph node yield. Mixed-effects regression models adjusted for age, sex, Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index, clinical T stage, clinical N stage, tumor grade, and lymphovascular invasion.
RESULTS: Among 22,688 patients treated at 873 facilities, 91% underwent surgery at compliant hospitals. CRM positivity was lower at compliant facilities (12% vs 14%; adjusted OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.99; P=0.04). Patients treated at compliant facilities had greater odds of achieving a more complete TME (adjusted OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.21-2.19; P=0.001), with lower rates of incomplete TME (9% vs 14%; P<0.001). Although ≥12 lymph nodes were examined more frequently at compliant facilities (85% vs 81%; P<0.001), this association was not significant after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.99-1.55; P=0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: Standard 5.7 compliance was independently associated with lower CRM positivity and more complete TME, suggesting that Standard 5.7 represents a meaningful facility-level indicator of technical quality in rectal cancer surgery. Whether these differences translate into improved long-term oncologic outcomes requires further study.